FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GERFLOR LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. In January 2006, the worker became redundant due to the closure of the Company sales office as part of a reorganisation. The worker has over 25 years experience within the Company's sales office. The severance package offered originally by the Company was 2 week's pay per year of service in addition to statutory redundancy. Following a meeting with the Managing Director this was increased to 2.5 week's pay per year of service. This was not acceptable to the worker. The worker argued that they had been a loyal employee who had worked for a salary that was less than the going rate for someone of their position. The Company argued that its offer was in line with what had been paid to other staff in a similar situation.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Following on from the Conference the Company made a final offer of 3.5 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy payment. This offer was rejected and the Company would not agree to a further Conciliation Conference. The dispute was originally referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. As the Company was not willing to complete the process, the worker referred the claim to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court Hearing took place on 26th April, 2007. The Company set out its position in a letter to the Court and indicated in advance that they would not be attending the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1 The Company used delaying tactics in frustrating early resolution of the claims. During the workers many years of service the Company has failed in their duty of care to him and with the redundancy situation were offered an opportunity to rectify that situation in a tangible manner, but this proposition was rejected.
2 Over the years the company has been very successful and profitable. In 2003 there was a proposed restructuring of the Company which included a voluntary redundancy package of four weeks pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy. These plans were later withdrawn. A severance package settlement is sought that is at least in line with those that have emerged through Industrial Relations negotiations in the region the Company is based, where six weeks pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy payment payment has been achieved. There were also additional benefits and enhanced pension arrangements in some of these cases.
3 The worker cooperated fully with the closure of the office in the mistaken belief that the Company would not treat him less favourably than other workers who had been declared redundant by other firms, both national and international in the region.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company has declined to participate in the hearing to investigate this dispute but did make a written statement outlining its position.
The dispute was initially dealt with under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 and the case was the subject of a Conciliation hearing. As the Company was unwilling to complete this process the Union has opted for a referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The worker sought severance terms of 6 weeks pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy payments and enhanced pension arrangements. In its statement to the Court the Company stated that its final offer was 3 and a half weeks pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy payments.
In making this Recommendation the Court has taken account of the worker's length of service and his status within the Company. The Court recommends that the Company should pay 4 weeks pay per year of service plus his statutory redundancy payments and 3 years notional service should be added to his entitlements for pension purposes.
The worker advised the Court that he was due a 3% increase on 1st January 2006, two weeks before he was made redundant. The Court recommends that the calculation of his severance package should include this 3% increase.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th May 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.